Election Day is rapidly approaching and this is a request to anyone who has an elderly relative or neighbor to reach out to them with an offer of help.

Many of our elderly have one or more disabilities that can make voting at the polls difficult, if not impossible. We can help overcome some of these difficulties by offering to help with registering if necessary. Help them sign up for absentee voting or early voting if they prefer to vote that way. If your elder wishes to go to the polling place, help by offering a ride and bringing along water and maybe a snack in anticipation of a long wait.

Not only is voting a way for citizens to shape the course of our nation, but it is also a civil right that reinforces the feelings of dignity, respect and a sense of community.

Let’s make sure that our elderly have the same chance to continue reaping the benefits of voting too.

Laura Swatek, Littleton

This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

No matter how good a debater President Obama might be, he simply could not defend the un-defensible, mainly his four-year history of failed economic policies. He knew it from the opening bell. Mitt Romney came out “smoking”; he was equipped with solid facts and ideas. He was on the attack immediately, punching and counter-punching, never allowing Obama to wage any sort of attack. The president’s facial expressions were very revealing. He was being “hammered.”

Had this been a real boxing contest, it would have been stopped by a TKO (technical knockout.) Actually, Obama was being hit so hard, he declared “no mas” by looking over at moderator Jim Lehrer, begging him to move on to the next question. The format of the contest was perfect: each contestant had two minutes to answer the question and then they were allowed to go at it “mano a mano.” At the end, it was Romney standing as the clear winner. It was great to watch.

Peter Bruno, Arvada

This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.

The consensus among the pundits appears to be that Mitt Romney won the first debate. I thought President Obama won on style and, especially, substance.
As to style, Obama was calm while Romney flailed away rhetorically. I preferred Obama’s analytical — yes, professorial — approach to a range of very serious issues. Obama failed to use Bain, the 47 percent, and other red meat that the adrenalized, prize-fight-oriented punditry wanted to see. I found that reassuring, not a missed opportunity by Obama.

On the substance, the debate was not close. Obama won. Among other things, Obama continually pointed out the inconsistencies in Romney’s own statements. Romney also drew a line in the sand that he will not use additional tax revenues to reduce deficits and the national debt. It is wildly irresponsible to take tax revenues off the table when we face a $16 trillion debt.

All in all, a good night for Obama, even if the chattering class may not see it this way.

Bruce Driver, Boulder

This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.

The overwhelming consensus is that Mitt Romney prevailed handily in the first debate against President Obama. No wonder. President Obama had the impossible task of defending the indefensible — his record. And he has been so coddled by the media and insulated by his handlers over the last four years that he has had precious little practice at dealing with tough questions in an off-the-cuff, in-your-face manner, unfiltered by the media.

As for Romney, he was clear, forceful, logical, likable and far more presidential than the president. He did a great job of explaining how growth is the answer to our problem and how the way to create growth is to get the federal government out of the way.

Rusty Staff, Longmont

This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.

Was I dismayed by President Obama’s performance in Wednesday night’s debate? Of course. But what truly frightened me to the core was Mitt Romney’s unabashed disregard, arrogance and lack of respect shown for the moderator, Jim Lehrer, an equally learned and accomplished person, a man doing nothing to Romney but offering him a forum to express himself. But Romney didn’t want to play by the rules — rather to only have his own way, however insulting. While the media pundits are actually joking around about this, Romney’s CEO-minded “my way or the highway” attitude towards someone he perceived as standing in his way is truly frightening and more a measure of the man than anything else that happened Wednesday night. This behavior should not be ignored.

Kelsey Kenfield, Denver

This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.

The subheading in Thursday’s Denver Post said President Obama accused Mitt Romney of being secretive and deceptive in his plans. Perhaps the reason for this is Obama does not listen to what Romney says, as was evident in Wednesday night’s debate. Romney stated he would grow the economy by cutting the tax rate across the board without raising the deficit. He spelled out how he would do it. Cutting the tax rate on business owners eager to grow their businesses would encourage them to hire new workers who would also be taxpayers. In addition, it would remove them from the governmental unemployment insurance program and perhaps take them off food stamps if they are dependent upon them. The additional taxes and net savings by having more people working would decrease the deficit, not add to it.

Ronald Reagan did it after the Carter administration, and the net result was many, many years of economic prosperity for our nation. It works!

Elizabeth M. Hecker, Denver

This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.

Watching the debate, I am more certain than ever that President Obama deserves a second term. He showed leadership, deep knowledge of issues and stayed above the fray. Mitt Romney lacked details when pressed and didn’t seem to have answers. President Obama is conscientious, has real-world experience on being a student with college loans, having relatives with insurance and retirement issues, like most of Americans. Let’s give President Obama four more years and we will see jobs, creative solutions and answers to quiet the pundits. Good intentions are no longer enough; we need action; we need President Obama re-elected.

Cheryl Brungardt, Wheat Ridge

This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.

Clearly Mitt Romney won the vote of the “Survivor”/“American Idol” viewers and won’t be voted off the island this week. Barack Obama won among the “Jeopardy” viewers and will get to play again. I got the feeling Romney was trying to win the debate and Obama was trying to persuade undecided voters. I predict people’s opinion of each one’s performance will change a bit over the next week or so. Except for Big Bird. I think he made up his mind Wednesday night.

Kenn Amdahl, Broomfield

This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.

In contrast to many differing opinions, Jim Lehrer did a really acceptable job as moderator, and here is why: In so many prior debates, the moderator has jumped in and ended the conversation for the sake of time, and often the last line was perhaps not the truth. When things end like that, as the old saying goes, a lie unchallenged becomes the truth. I am grateful that Lehrer allowed each candidate to get those important points across and rebut things that were being tossed into the arena of public opinion to be set straight, even if it took a little more time. As a voter who is interested in the truth, I say thanks, Mr. Lehrer, you were right to do exactly what you did. You allowed the men to speak.

Tish Jeffers, Centennial

This letter was published in the Oct. 5 edition.

It all came out! A lot of people have known for some time — Obama is an empty suit!

Bob Stamp, Highlands Ranch

This letter was published online only.

The people have finally got their first taste of the candidates alone on a stage discussing the issues. While I see that the GOP is happy that their candidate came out loudly and with what some are calling style, I felt that on substance the president definitively won the debate. When the fact-checkers do their homework, this will be abundantly clear.

Caley Bovee, Lakewood

This letter was published online only.

I appreciate your coverage of the debate, but you missed the best line of the evening. When President Obama complained about companies like ExxonMobil getting “corporate welfare” of $4 billion per year, Mitt Romney responded that all the money that went into Solyndra and other green energy companies that failed would add up to 50 years of the oil companies’ tax breaks. It left Obama speechless!

Diane Church, Grand Lake

This letter was published online only.

Mitt Romney was certainly aggressive and assertive in the first presidential debate. He repeated some words and phrases several times, even when they were not relevant to the question. It seemed to work for him.The trouble is — and few have mentioned it — he did a lot of what he always does, threw out a lot of generalities with very little to back them up in terms of specifics. A new candidate can get away with that easier than an incumbent, since he has no record to check.

Unfortunately, a lot of what Romney said is not possible to accomplish — like balancing the budget in his term of office or his talking about what he did as governor of a small state, which has little to do with America as a whole. Romney was only governor for one term and most of the items he took credit for were already in progress prior to his taking office.

It boils down to this: Do you want to go back to the Bush years of no regulation, free-wheeling big business, which took us into the worst recession in 75 years, tax cuts for all, even with two wars and a large debt to cope with, a foreign policy based largely on going to war, even when useless, like Iraq; or do you want a country where the government is concerned with all its people, not just the well-to-do, sets up policies that are improving our economy in a sound manner for all our people, deals with foreign issues in an objective and sound way and moves ahead slowly and soundly in a direction that is always improving our people and our security?

I’ll vote for the latter one every time.

John Ruckman, Lakewood

This letter was published online only.

It was refreshing to see President Obama confronted — finally — about his dismal record. No teleprompter or lefty newsie to help him out. Although I think Mitt Romney will slow our country’s descent into financial oblivion (Obama seems determined to take us there as quickly as possible), there is really not much either candidate is willing to do, nor can do, to right the ship.

Neither candidate talked about meaningful course correction to our budget busters like Social Security, national defense, welfare or so-called Income Security, or Medicare. Even with tax increases for the wealthy, there are simply too many trillions in the budget. If the candidates had discussed meaningful reform, they would not get elected, because the candidates are not the problem, the American people are the problem. Most of us partake of (or have partaken in) some sort of welfare program, be it baby boomers or the disabled and their Medicare and Social Security, the Earned Income Credit, the first-time-homebuyer’s credit, the cash-for-clunkers credit, auto bailouts, bank bailouts, food stamps, etc.

We’re nearly all partakers of federal handouts, and no one wants their favorite program cut, so it looks like we’ll continue ignoring the real problem until it’s simply no longer possible. That makes all of us complicit.
In the days following the debate, everyone will hysterically comment on “who won.” Why does it matter who won when the eventual winner of this contest will have to govern losers?

Ben Terry, Broomfield

This letter was published online only.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...